TL 191: The Southern Occupation

[Joshua Ben Ari]

I disagree with the notion of a USSR-esque breakup of the United States. The U.S. was not merely as autocratic or economically backwards as the USSR and the more militaristic American culture will probably ensure the stiff pin-down of the C.S.A. and Canada. IIRC the U.S. Military of ATL did not follow the rules of war and committed reprisal killings (10 civilians for 1 dead U.S. soldier killed or something like that), so I have a feeling that the ex-Confederates and Canadians would lose hope in becoming independent again in lieu of their people being murdered for the actions of others.

I could see the Canadians seeing themselves as Americans around the 50s, while the Confederates would become Americanized around the late 60s or 70s.

A more militaristic US culture is going to harm integration of Canadians and Confederates (and definitely of the Mormons). Reprisal attacks were commonplace in TL-191 US, that's true, but that's only going to breed resentment. I agree with rvbomally, reprisal killings will lead to non-violent resistance (and Craigo in the Filling the Gaps thread had Lester Pearson start a nonviolence movement borrowing elements from Mahatma Gandhi and Henry David Thoreau, quoted below)

Of particular interest is the growing peace movement under Lester Pearson, an academic in Ontario. Pearson, who fought in the Great War and the First Rebellion, now draws on the ideas of the American Thoreau and the Indian Gandhi, and advocates "peaceful struggle." Whether this new tactic will have any effect against a military occupation is yet to be seen.

Justifying the occupation is going to get harder and harder, especially if the US government continually paints them as irredeemably evil. How do you integrate conquered peoples into your own country and paint them as evil? How do you integrate people your parents or grandparents remember fighting? There's going to be a lot of scars and I don't think the American people will be able to swallow integrating the Canadians and ex-Confederates; the Canadians fought three wars against the US, launched two large-scale rebellions against the military occupation, and now have an independence movement homegrown dedicated to freeing Canada from American occupation. The South is going to be an even bigger can of worms: they fought three wars against the US, killed millions of their own black citizens, and now have Southern resistance to the US occupation and neo-Freedomite terror.

The best you can hope for is a sufficiently Americanized population, but the rise of independence movements and neo-nationalism is going to make things infinitely more difficult, especially selling the idea that Canadians in Alberta or Southerners in Mississippi can be represented in Congress. We're talking the US integrating their Canadian and Southern occupied territories by the 1960s and there's still going to be a vast number of Americans who remember heading north to crack Canadian skulls, or remember liberating death camps in the South. And you're telling them that Canadians and Southerners, growing up under American occupation, are ready to be integrated into the US?

I wonder if anyone else in this thread has read Does Conquest Pay?

It's been ages since I read it, but I've linked it here if anyone else wants to read it.

Why not? It's not a planned economy run by Joseph Stalin.

Maintaining a decades-long occupation isn't going to help them (they've already been occupying Canada since 1917). The US is going to want to focus on rebuilding everything theirs that was damaged or destroyed in the SGW, then helping their Special Relationship buddy Ireland, and then Canada and the ex-CSA. Hundreds of millions of dollars to rebuild, infrastructure damaged or destroyed, the economy in at least a dozen states is going to take years to revive. Not to mention the Southern economy is practically non-existent, the Canadians have damaged the economy up north with a three-year rebellion, and the arrival of a tripolar cold war setting between Americans, Germans and Japanese? It doesn't look good economically for the United States.

 

[Faeelin]

A
Maintaining a decades-long occupation isn't going to help them (they've already been occupying Canada since 1917). The US is going to want to focus on rebuilding everything theirs that was damaged or destroyed in the SGW, then helping their Special Relationship buddy Ireland, and then Canada and the ex-CSA. Hundreds of millions of dollars to rebuild, infrastructure damaged or destroyed, the economy in at least a dozen states is going to take years to revive. Not to mention the Southern economy is practically non-existent, the Canadians have damaged the economy up north with a three-year rebellion, and the arrival of a tripolar cold war setting between Americans, Germans and Japanese? It doesn't look good economically for the United States.

So what you're describing is Europe after 1945.

That place is indeed a grimdark hellhole.

 

[Joshua Ben Ari]

So what you're describing is Europe after 1945.

That place is indeed a grimdark hellhole.

Similar, but not quite. After almost 80 years of being their own nation, are Southerners really going to integrate into the United States? After suffering under decades of occupation, are the Canadians (who have rebelled twice) going to integrate? The US is going to make it harder for both Americans and the people under occupation to come together if they keep doing reprisal killings, or if they stigmatize them. Look at Canada. You expect me to believe that after only two generations under a military occupation with a legal system that effectively denied Canadians any form of rights, Canadians are going to integrate into the United States and everything is going to be okay? There's going to be ingrained discrimination against them by Americans because they rebelled against the US twice and they allied with the CSA during the SGW.

 

[Tiro]

So what you're describing is Europe after 1945.

To be strictly accurate it's a Europe after 1945 WITHOUT the United States to play Fairy Godmother via the Marshall Plan, a far nastier place entirely.

 

[Faeelin]

To be strictly accurate it's a Europe after 1945 WITHOUT the United States to play Fairy Godmother via the Marshall Plan, a far nastier place entirely.

Eastern Europe also had sustained economic growth and recovered form the war. It stagnated because of a planned economy, but this suggests that things won't be a grimdark future where there is only war.

 

[Dave Howery]

Similar, but not quite. After almost 80 years of being their own nation, are Southerners really going to integrate into the United States? After suffering under decades of occupation, are the Canadians (who have rebelled twice) going to integrate? The US is going to make it harder for both Americans and the people under occupation to come together if they keep doing reprisal killings, or if they stigmatize them. Look at Canada. You expect me to believe that after only two generations under a military occupation with a legal system that effectively denied Canadians any form of rights, Canadians are going to integrate into the United States and everything is going to be okay? There's going to be ingrained discrimination against them by Americans because they rebelled against the US twice and they allied with the CSA during the SGW.

IIRC, one of the reasons the US conquered Canada in the first place was because it was potentially a logistics/gathering area for British troops. But in the version of WW2, the UK is seriously fucked... three major cities gone due to nukes, millions of men lost in a lost war, etc. It's hard to see the US letting itself go down the tubes trying to hold down Canada and the CSA both, so... maybe a simpler plan? Might they just annex a couple of places (BC, some of the east coast) and let the rest be independent? With Quebec as an ally and the UK out of the picture for decades to come, Canada isn't going to be much of a player on the international scene...

 

[Joshua Ben Ari]

IIRC, one of the reasons the US conquered Canada in the first place was because it was potentially a logistics/gathering area for British troops. But in the version of WW2, the UK is seriously fucked... three major cities gone due to nukes, millions of men lost in a lost war, etc. It's hard to see the US letting itself go down the tubes trying to hold down Canada and the CSA both, so... maybe a simpler plan? Might they just annex a couple of places (BC, some of the east coast) and let the rest be independent? With Quebec as an ally and the UK out of the picture for decades to come, Canada isn't going to be much of a player on the international scene...

I don't think they would. While one of the reasons the US conquered Canada was to prevent British troops from invading the continental US (like Anglo-Canadian troops did in the Second Mexican War), they seemed pretty adamant about keeping all Canadians down. The Democrats would probably view that treasonous (they are the party of the occupation, and they don't want the Canadians to rise up in any fashion), while the Socialists don't want to be seen like Al Smith was when he handed back Houston and Kentucky. And even if there was a smaller Canada, I think both the Democrats and the Socialists would view there's no guarantee that a Canadian leader couldn't come around like Featherston and preach for referendums on the "occupied Canadian states" of British Columbia and the Maritimes.

Remember, Canada held out for a lot longer (1941-43) with only a fraction of the ex-CSA's population. I don't think the Americans would want to risk it, and the Democrats might view it as political suicide to consider Canadian independence.

 

[Dave Howery]

I don't think they would. While one of the reasons the US conquered Canada was to prevent British troops from invading the continental US (like Anglo-Canadian troops did in the Second Mexican War), they seemed pretty adamant about keeping all Canadians down. The Democrats would probably view that treasonous (they are the party of the occupation, and they don't want the Canadians to rise up in any fashion), while the Socialists don't want to be seen like Al Smith was when he handed back Houston and Kentucky. And even if there was a smaller Canada, I think both the Democrats and the Socialists would view there's no guarantee that a Canadian leader couldn't come around like Featherston and preach for referendums on the "occupied Canadian states" of British Columbia and the Maritimes.

Remember, Canada held out for a lot longer (1941-43) with only a fraction of the ex-CSA's population. I don't think the Americans would want to risk it, and the Democrats might view it as political suicide to consider Canadian independence.

if the alternative is going down the tubes themselves though... and the US does have nukes while Canada likely never will...

 

[Joshua Ben Ari]

if the alternative is going down the tubes themselves though... and the US does have nukes while Canada likely never will...

That's true, but from what the books say, the US seems pretty adamant about holding all of Canada. I'd personally imagine that when Canada gains independence when the US collapses, they'll pursue nuclear weapons tech if only as a deterrent to possible American expansionism.

 

[Dave Howery]

That's true, but from what the books say, the US seems pretty adamant about holding all of Canada. I'd personally imagine that when Canada gains independence when the US collapses, they'll pursue nuclear weapons tech if only as a deterrent to possible American expansionism.

for the moment... if the US gets to the point where they face possible collapse due to trying to hold down both the CSA and Canada, I'd bet on them dropping the latter. In any event, that scenario would play out a couple of generations later, so that 'adamant about holding all of Canada' may not be so adamant anymore...

 

[Joshua Ben Ari]

for the moment... if the US gets to the point where they face possible collapse due to trying to hold down both the CSA and Canada, I'd bet on them dropping the latter. In any event, that scenario would play out a couple of generations later, so that 'adamant about holding all of Canada' may not be so adamant anymore...

I wouldn't be too sure. The US, in order to integrate Canada and the ex-CSA into the Union, would essentially have to sell the notion that the Canadians and Southerners who grew up under US military rule are going to be sufficiently Americanized, and at which point telling the American people that "hey, Canada is going to be independent now" is going to be like saying that the deaths of American soldiers to defeat the Second Rebellion wasn't worth it, and make everyone wonder what's going to happen in the South, if they're also going to go independent. The Democrats won't go for it because they want to keep the Canadians down; the Socialists won't go for it because they'll be seen as the party that gave away Kentucky, Houston and now Canada; and the Republicans won't because they haven't won the presidency since the 19th century and are the .5 in the American political system.

 

[United Republic]

I wouldn't be too sure. The US, in order to integrate Canada and the ex-CSA into the Union, would essentially have to sell the notion that the Canadians and Southerners who grew up under US military rule are going to be sufficiently Americanized, and at which point telling the American people that "hey, Canada is going to be independent now" is going to be like saying that the deaths of American soldiers to defeat the Second Rebellion wasn't worth it, and make everyone wonder what's going to happen in the South, if they're also going to go independent. The Democrats won't go for it because they want to keep the Canadians down; the Socialists won't go for it because they'll be seen as the party that gave away Kentucky, Houston and now Canada; and the Republicans won't because they haven't won the presidency since the 19th century and are the .5 in the American political system.

If the U.S. really wants to hold onto the ex-CSA and Canada, I think they would have to delegate power to locals considered "safe" (ex. Anti-Freedomite) whilst administering a military occupation. IIRC in Filling the Gaps, ex-Confederate General George C. Marshall was the head of an administrative post in Virginia led by civilians appointed by the north. Maybe pro-American Canadians will have similar roles in Canada. But I certainly know the U.S. would not be keen on relinquishing Canada or the C.S.

 

[Joshua Ben Ari]

If the U.S. really wants to hold onto the ex-CSA and Canada, I think they would have to delegate power to locals considered "safe" (ex. Anti-Freedomite) whilst administering a military occupation. IIRC in Filling the Gaps, ex-Confederate General George C. Marshall was the head of an administrative post in Virginia led by civilians appointed by the north. Maybe pro-American Canadians will have similar roles in Canada. But I certainly know the U.S. would not be keen on relinquishing Canada or the C.S.

At least we agree the US isn't going to be keen on giving up either. The issue is going to be finding "safe" local administrators in Canada, especially since all of them have suffered under the American "legal" system in place. While I think the US could find some to help administer Canada like Marshall is doing in Virginia, I don't think many Canadians would see them as anything less than an American puppet

 

[Nivek]

the issue is in that even in the books canadians did were willingly to 'integrated' with american but the americans got cold feet over the debate or how much hot potato that would be(maybe some doubt if would be sincere, still was a golden chance and both sides fumbled it badly) i think after that they if willignly would try it again.

The South-CSA is a much bigger and far more problematic hot potato.....for me creating vassal states like quebec and texas would be far more practical...

 

[Joshua Ben Ari]

the issue is in that even in the books canadians did were willingly to 'integrated' with american but the americans got cold feet over the debate or how much hot potato that would be(maybe some doubt if would be sincere, still was a golden chance and both sides fumbled it badly) i think after that they if willignly would try it again.

The South-CSA is a much bigger and far more problematic hot potato.....for me creating vassal states like quebec and texas would be far more practical...

There may have been resignation on the part of some Canadians to their fate as part of the United States, but I do think that the Canadians wouldn't have accepted continued rule by the Americans in the wake of their political limbo. Remember the phrase, "either give us the Constitution or get out": either the US actually integrates them and doesn't demonize them (which I believe will happen, as they did fight three wars and two rebellions against US rule), or the US realizes that Canada isn't a threat to US national security and grant them independence.

I don't think vassal states will be created in the South, if only because the US is pretty adamant about reunifying all of the pre-civil war United States into a single union. Texas may be just an anomaly, and we're not sure how long it'll survive.

 

[United Republic]

I don't think vassal states will be created in the South, if only because the US is pretty adamant about reunifying all of the pre-civil war United States into a single union. Texas may be just an anomaly, and we're not sure how long it'll survive.

I always felt like Texas would be similar to the Saar Protectorate in OTL, it would survive for a couple of years, but it would probably be absorbed into the U.S. around the 50s or 60s. However, would it be granted immediate statehood or be a southern territory? And would the State of Houston join it?

 

[Kaiphranos]

Perhaps a little off-topic, but I always thought the idea of Population Reduction survivors settling in Haiti or Liberia was ripe for some Israel/Palestine parallelism--maybe just one more thorny foreign policy issue for the U.S. to deal with...

 

[Joshua Ben Ari]

I always felt like Texas would be similar to the Saar Protectorate in OTL, it would survive for a couple of years, but it would probably be absorbed into the U.S. around the 50s or 60s. However, would it be granted immediate statehood or be a southern territory? And would the State of Houston join it?

It's entirely possible, and if it does get absorbed it'll probably around the late 1950s. I feel like it would be given immediate statehood, but that the Federal government would scour the entire Texas government to make sure there's no Freedomites running around. I don't think the US would let Houston join up Texas, they'll keep the two separate.

Perhaps a little off-topic, but I always thought the idea of Population Reduction survivors settling in Haiti or Liberia was ripe for some Israel/Palestine parallelism--maybe just one more thorny foreign policy issue for the U.S. to deal with...

It's not off topic, and you're not the only one. Look at the Filling the Future thread, Liberia passed a law that was basically a "Law of Return" that any black in the US, ex-CSA Canada or Haiti could get Liberian citizenship the second they touched Liberian soil. Haiti would be dealing with the destruction of so many Haitians and then deal with the arrival of thousands of Southern Destruction survivors

 

[Dave Howery]

I wouldn't be too sure. The US, in order to integrate Canada and the ex-CSA into the Union, would essentially have to sell the notion that the Canadians and Southerners who grew up under US military rule are going to be sufficiently Americanized, and at which point telling the American people that "hey, Canada is going to be independent now" is going to be like saying that the deaths of American soldiers to defeat the Second Rebellion wasn't worth it, and make everyone wonder what's going to happen in the South, if they're also going to go independent. The Democrats won't go for it because they want to keep the Canadians down; the Socialists won't go for it because they'll be seen as the party that gave away Kentucky, Houston and now Canada; and the Republicans won't because they haven't won the presidency since the 19th century and are the .5 in the American political system.

if the US is capable of holding onto the CSA and Canada without collapsing, then yes. But the scenario we keep bringing up is that the USA will collapse if it tries to hang onto both. The question is, will the USA let it go so far, or would they just let Canada go to avert it...

 

[rvbomally]

if the US is capable of holding onto the CSA and Canada without collapsing, then yes. But the scenario we keep bringing up is that the USA will collapse if it tries to hang onto both. The question is, will the USA let it go so far, or would they just let Canada go to avert it...

That really depends on what the author wants to do, since these decisions will be made late in post-war history, and will be shaped by what the author has done in between.